3 ms·

>A possible solution could be to expand the goalie-only area around the net. That would, in theory, force opponents to focus more on shooting and not on piling

by hbosch 6y ago

>A possible solution could be to expand the goalie-only area around the net. That would, in theory, force opponents to focus more on shooting and not on piling around the goalie. Pandora's box is already open. Bigger net, more space, smaller pads, etc. won't get players to necessarily focus more on skill shots... it will likely make the chaotic approach today more successful.

jacurtis 6y ago
Yeah i do agree that pandora's box might already be open. I am an avid hockey fan and there has been a huge shift towards "trick" shots in the past few years to get around these goalies. It is becoming increasingly rare to see "normal" goals anymore in NHL hockey. Goalies are simply too good that normal goals won't go in. So if a defensemen wants to slapshot the puck, his forwards (who are down in front of the net) need to "screen" the goalie so the goalie can't see the puck. The forward then needs to try to dodge the puck at the last second before the goalie can react. We also are seeing probably half or so of NHL goals come from deflections to pinball the puck around so the goalie can't even track the puck. It is amazing how good NHL forwards are getting now at deflecting. We routinely see triple deflections now. The rest of the goals are just from diving the net. With 6-8 players in front of the net (3 attacking forwards, and 5 defending forwards+defensemen) just slapping at the puck in the chaos as it bounces around, it eventually goes in. So I have long since believed that they should widen the net (just by 4-6 inches). But I do think that the NHL players have just gotten so good at creatively combatting the goalie, that widening the net might end up with too many goals in games. There is a fine balance between not enough scoring like in Soccer (Football outside USA) and with too much scoring (like in Basketball). American Football does a good job balancing the scoring. Most games have 3-4 touchdowns between both teams, plus a handful of other scoring opportunities like field goals and conversions. It keeps the touchdowns exciting (players even dance in the endzone on live TV), while still moving the game along with smaller scoring opportunities throughout the game.
- caddemon 6y ago
  I also think American Football (and baseball) does a good job of having quantifiable action outside of scoring plays. Every play has a clear result, often with obvious valence. So even though it doesn't count directly towards the final score, you can build up tension and excitement for example just on 3rd down conversion attempts. An experienced viewer might be able to pick out this sort of mini battle during other sports, and there are also more nuanced battles in football that a random viewer may not pick up on. But for somebody casual, or even just listening on the radio or checking for updates on an app, there is a lot more "result" happening on a football field. Plus the pauses help, when somebody gets the better of their opponent in a traditional goal-based sport you usually know mere moments later whether it had an impact on the game. A 3rd down conversion on the other hand can have minutes of game time (let alone real time) before one knows whether it led to a score. And even if it didn't, there is at least a clear impact on time of possession. So I think perception of too little vs too much scoring can be helped by this dynamic, where real scores still feel very impactful but there are "fake" scores one can also root for on a shorter timescale.

by hbosch 6y ago

jacurtis 6y ago

Yeah i do agree that pandora's box might already be open. I am an avid hockey fan and there has been a huge shift towards "trick" shots in the past few years to get around these goalies. It is becoming increasingly rare to see "normal" goals anymore in NHL hockey. Goalies are simply too good that normal goals won't go in. So if a defensemen wants to slapshot the puck, his forwards (who are down in front of the net) need to "screen" the goalie so the goalie can't see the puck. The forward then needs to try to dodge the puck at the last second before the goalie can react. We also are seeing probably half or so of NHL goals come from deflections to pinball the puck around so the goalie can't even track the puck. It is amazing how good NHL forwards are getting now at deflecting. We routinely see triple deflections now. The rest of the goals are just from diving the net. With 6-8 players in front of the net (3 attacking forwards, and 5 defending forwards+defensemen) just slapping at the puck in the chaos as it bounces around, it eventually goes in. So I have long since believed that they should widen the net (just by 4-6 inches). But I do think that the NHL players have just gotten so good at creatively combatting the goalie, that widening the net might end up with too many goals in games. There is a fine balance between not enough scoring like in Soccer (Football outside USA) and with too much scoring (like in Basketball). American Football does a good job balancing the scoring. Most games have 3-4 touchdowns between both teams, plus a handful of other scoring opportunities like field goals and conversions. It keeps the touchdowns exciting (players even dance in the endzone on live TV), while still moving the game along with smaller scoring opportunities throughout the game.

caddemon 6y ago
I also think American Football (and baseball) does a good job of having quantifiable action outside of scoring plays. Every play has a clear result, often with obvious valence. So even though it doesn't count directly towards the final score, you can build up tension and excitement for example just on 3rd down conversion attempts. An experienced viewer might be able to pick out this sort of mini battle during other sports, and there are also more nuanced battles in football that a random viewer may not pick up on. But for somebody casual, or even just listening on the radio or checking for updates on an app, there is a lot more "result" happening on a football field. Plus the pauses help, when somebody gets the better of their opponent in a traditional goal-based sport you usually know mere moments later whether it had an impact on the game. A 3rd down conversion on the other hand can have minutes of game time (let alone real time) before one knows whether it led to a score. And even if it didn't, there is at least a clear impact on time of possession. So I think perception of too little vs too much scoring can be helped by this dynamic, where real scores still feel very impactful but there are "fake" scores one can also root for on a shorter timescale.